At the risk of possibly alienating some folks, I thought I'd talk about the "b" word a little bit. I've been seeing a LOT of social media chatter along the lines of "I'd vote for Jo Jorgenson but she believes in open borders".
Now, let's skip over whether that term has much in the way of a realistic meaning versus a legal meaning and go straight to what we're really talking about: Federal control over immigration. Put simply, the Constitution doesn't authorize it. Go look, I'll wait.
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"
That's under Article 1, section 8. Furthermore, going back historically, immigration laws weren't even a "thing" until almost a hundred years after ratification. Indeed, it wasn't until 1875 that the Supreme Court "invented" this power for the Federal Government:
So it seems to me if you want to use the "originalist" and/or "conservative" legal interpretation of the Constitution in some cases, you need to apply that theory to ALL Constitutional questions.
If the Federal Government has the *power* (not right) to regulate immigration because SCOTUS (not the Founders) said so in 1875, then SCOTUS decisions restricting gun rights are just fine, the National Firearms Act is Constitutional, Congress can regulate *anything they want* as long as they pretend it affects "commerce", and Roe v. Wade is a legitimate use of judicial power.
I don't know why self-described "constitutional conservatives" are unable (or unwilling) to see this. Happy to have more of a conversation on this, but to me it's just another case of "salad bar Constitutionalism".
Post a Comment